Page 2, line 6, leave out ("serve notice of his desire on the adjoining owner describing") and insert (", at least one month before he intends the building work to start, serve on any adjoining owner a notice which indicates his desire to build and describes").
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("with") to ("place") in line 11 and insert ("subsection (4) or (5) he shall have the right, at any time in the period which--
(a) begins one month after the day on which the notice mentioned in the subsection concerned was served, and
(b) ends twelve months after that day,
to").
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("foundation") and insert ("foundations").
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("to") and insert ("for").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in connection with Amendments Nos. 1 and 8. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("wall") to end of line 17 and insert ("wholly on his own land in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) he shall do so at his own expense and shall compensate any adjoining owner and any adjoining occupier for any damage to his property occasioned by--
(a) the building of the wall;

22 May 1996 : Column 935

(b) the placing of any footings or foundations placed in accordance with subsection (6).").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which tightens up the wording of the Bill. As a result of this amendment it will be clearer what causes of damage can lead to compensation. The amendment is entirely consistent with the intention of the Bill and with that of the Bill's promoters. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 2, line 19, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50 and 82. All these amendments replace the word "the" with "any". The intention is to make the application of the relevant provisions more inclusive. There is good reason for this as there can be several adjacent owners and occupiers in an urban environment. The practice of the London building Acts is that they all have the protection of that legislation in inner London. For the purposes of a public Act of Parliament that has to be spelt out more clearly. Amendment No. 82, in referring to the singular to augment the plural in this Bill, is of a similar nature to cover situations where only one surveyor is making the decision--for instance, the third surveyor appointed by the surveyors for either party. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 2, line 20, leave out ("the provisions of").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment in the context of Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Repair etc. of party wall: rights of owner]:

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 2, line 24, leave out ("The") and insert ("A").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert--
("(a) to underpin, thicken or raise a party structure, a party fence wall, or an external wall which belongs to the building owner and is built against a party structure or party fence wall;
(ab) to make good, repair, or demolish and rebuild, a party structure or party fence wall in a case where such work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall;").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 17 I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 37, 41, 44, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 77. I apologise for reading out another long list. All these amendments revolve around the same substantive issue. They are all drafting amendments. The original wording included in

22 May 1996 : Column 936

several instances more than one concept in a single sentence. This derived from the 1930s legislation of the London building Acts. On legal advice and to accord with modern drafting, I am told that these should be separated. This has meant some amalgamation and some re-ordering and sub-division within clauses. Amendment No. 19, for instance, is now amalgamated with the relevant part of Clause 2 by Amendment No. 17, and Amendment No. 41 clarifies that the act of excavation alone can trigger the need for a notice under the 3 metre and 6 metre rules of proximity.

There are also some minor changes which improve and clarify what the Bill is intended to mean. For instance, Amendment No. 64 refers to work authorised by the Bill, whether or not it was the subject of notice in the first place. That is important in terms of bringing into consideration things that have been forgotten or left out. It is what already happens under the London building Acts but it is not expressly provided for. It is appropriate when dealing with this Bill to bring in a provision making it absolutely clear what is intended.

I am advised that this is an area where the wording generally of the London building Acts is not ad idem with modern drafting. As a result of that there are some deficiencies. In accepting the rewording on the advice of parliamentary counsel, I stress that the intention, as ever, is to convey the same sense and meaning to the relevant clauses as has been established in the practice and precedent of the 1930 and 1939 Acts. It is important that I stress that. I should like to make it clear that no substantial change is intended by these amendments. I am satisfied, as are the promoters, that this safeguard has been achieved. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:

Page 2, line 30, leave out ("is not in conformity") and insert ("does not conform").
Page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 3.

The noble Earl said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 18 with Amendment No. 1. I have spoken to Amendment No. 19 with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 3, line 10, leave out ("wall") and insert ("structure").

The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment which is to make it clear that we are dealing with a structure that is most likely to be a wall but may also be something in the nature of an arch, column or beam and may on occasions be a floor. The word "wall" was an incorrect inclusion in the original wording of the Bill, for which I can only take responsibility. The amendment seeks to remedy that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("of") to end of line 20 and insert ("any adjoining owner;").

22 May 1996 : Column 937

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 28. Amendment No. 21 serves to clarify, first, that it is intended to cover any adjoining owner, because, of course, there can be more than one; and secondly, it removes paragraphs (e)(i) and (ii) and (f) because provisions to the same effect are incorporated with Amendment No. 28.

Members of the Committee could be forgiven for expressing some concern about the way in which the text has been shuffled round here but, although the appearance is of a substantive amendment, the effect is mainly to move the relevant words to the end of Clause 2. That is tidier and will be more readily understood as a piece of legislation.

There is also a minor new provision in the sense that subsection (2E) of Amendment No. 28, which deals with parapets, relates to the technicality of making party walls comply with good building practice. With that explanation, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:

Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 24 and insert ("(which may be or include the purpose of inserting a damp proof course);").
Page 3, line 25, after first ("wall,") insert ("party").
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("wall") to end of line 31 and insert ("or for any other purpose;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 3, line 32, leave out from ("demolish") to end of line 37 and insert ("parts of any wall or building of an adjoining owner overhanging the land of the building owner or overhanging a party wall, to the extent that it is necessary to cut away or demolish the parts to enable a vertical wall to be erected or raised against the wall or building of the adjoining owner;").

The noble Earl said: This is a simple drafting amendment which restates more clearly what was originally intended. I beg to move.